Introduction
On the 10th of October 2007, Ms. Dana Perino held a press conference to answer questions from journalists especially concerning the president’s speech earlier in the day. The president had indicated that he was not in favor of the House of Representatives passing the Armenian Genocide Resolution.
A press conferences
Ms. Perino gave out first the schedule of the president’s activities that were to take place on 15th October, which she was supposed to have given them before. It was that the president was to be in Rodgers, Arkansas for pro-economic activities. After the briefing journalists were allowed to ask questions. Only a single question touched on the president’s activities of the 15th of October. Most of the rest of the questions were directed towards the earlier speech given by the president concerning the bill that was passed on that day concerning the Armenian Genocide.
The journalists wanted a clarification from the secretary of the press to know exactly the position of the president on identifying the historic killing of the Armenians in 1915 as genocide or not. To the journalists, the president did not consider the bill of the Armenian Genocide Resolution to be the right response to the historic mass killings and exiling of many of the many Armenians. According to the president, Ms. Perino said that the commemoration of the yearly remembrance of the mass killings was a better solution in handling the situation rather than having to pass a resolution by the House of Representatives. To the president, it was not fair to pass the resolution bill because the Turkish government over a long period they had never wanted the resolution bill to be passed by the House of Representatives. Since the Turkish government has been an ally of the US government in NATO and the fight against terror, passing such a bill will imply losing the best ally. According to the media outlets, the Turkish government has never wanted to refer to the historic killings as genocides, and since the president does not want the bill to be passed, it is an indication that he is also not ready to admit that the killings were genocide. The journalists wanted to exactly know how the Turkish government understands or takes the term genocide to mean. But the secretary of the press refused to answer the question referring it to be asked to the Turkish government itself.
The president had been quoted giving the first lady thumbs up for her participation and echoing for various programs to see the change in the life of the oppressed, such as those in Burma and Africa. This, therefore, raised the question that if the first lady is capable of standing and speaking against such evils, why shouldn’t the American government also speak of the historic killings as being genocide? Furthermore, the House of Representatives wants to go on record as having identified the killings as a genocide act, but only the president was against it. On this issue, the secretary answers by saying that the government has spoken against the killing of the monks that is taking place in Burma. But this seems not to give a conclusive answer to the journalists as they claim that the monk killing in Burma cannot be compared to the Armenian killings.
To defend the state, the secretary talks of the speech that the president has been giving (on the 24th of February each year) about the Armenian’s feelings, but it seems there is a contradiction and the state is unable to decide. The statement of Ms. Parino indicates this, she says,
…but the president has been on record. He’s been on record every single year through presidential messages…But the president understands that the Armenian people feel very strongly about it. And if you read his statement, he does not too. He just does not — he opposes a resolution in the House of Representatives on it.
The issue of Armenians
This statement indicates how the press was not satisfied with the way the president and the secretary of the press release were avoiding tackling the issue of Armenians and just term it as genocide. Furthermore, the journalists seem to press the secretary more than she could handle and give the required information. This makes her avoid some questions. For instance, a question directed to her concerning other heads of state that were fighting the dictatorship in Burma, and if the American president was also involved, the secretary says that she is not aware of the president of the U.S is also involved. The Journalists do not also get enough information as the secretary refuses to answer a question directed to her asking if the president knows “any Muslim who agree with the Christians’ beliefs about the son of God’s statement, [that] no man comes to the Father but by me”. This was because the president had said that he believed all the people no matter their religion, they prayed to the same God. This question was again directed that it be asked to the president himself.
To further stress the point about genocide in Armenia, journalists wanted to know why the president had changed his mind about genocide. The journalist quoted the president as having in 2000 during the campaign said that “Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defiles comprehension”. To this statement, the president than a candidate in 2000 believed that the killing in Armenia was genocide. Then from that period to now what had made him change was a puzzle to journalists and most Americans. But the secretary said that the president understands this problem and believes that the best way to go about is by a presidential statement rather than legislation.
In these cases especially about the Armenian saga, the major revelation that I could report as a journalist is that the president still understands and knows that the Armenian killings are genocides. But the only problem that has avoided him from referring to it as genocide is because he does not want to lose a good ally in NATO and fight against terror. This can be revealed by his speech that morning directed to the House of Representatives where he said, on another issue before the congress, I urge members to oppose the Armenian genocide resolution now being considered by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915. This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings and its passage would do great harm to our relationship with a key ally in NATO and the global war on terror.
Looking at this speech, the president only fears losing a key ally but in the actual sense, he is completely aware that the killing in Armenia was genocide.
Reports on media the following day
Most of the media the following day commented mostly on the president’s comments on refusing to refer to the Armenia matters as genocide. Therefore, to the media houses, the president was opposed to the resolution that the House of Representatives went ahead passing that day. For instance, the Los Angeles Times (2007) reported, Hours before the vote, Bush warned that the passage of the resolution would have serious consequences for U.S foreign policy. Its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and the global war on terror. Bush said on the south lawn of the Whitehouse.
“We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people, he said but added. This resolution is not the right response to these mass killings”.
The New York Times of 11th Oct also reported that the president had avoided using the term genocide, which took place in Armenia. The article reports were, “We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915”, Mr. Bush said in remarks that reflecting official American policy, carefully avoided the use of the word genocide. “This resolution is not the right response to this historic mass killing and its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and the global war on terror”.
All the media outlets looking at the way they were questioning the secretary of the press wanted to know why the president does not want to admit that the Armenian killings are genocides. Therefore, the following day, they all reported that the president did not want to refer to the matter of the Turkish as genocide at all and rather opted for the presidential statement. This is because of the mere fact that he wanted to maintain a good ally both in NATO and in the fight against terror. The reports were the same as put by the president on the previous day. But non of the media outlets went as far as referring to the situation of 2000 when the president was campaigning at that time when he referred to the Armenian situation as genocide and why he had not acted on the matter as he had promised.
Most of the news outlets brought out the quoting directly and correctly as spoken by the president on the previous day.
My major point on why the president did avoid relating the Armenian killings to genocide is because of the protection of an ally. This was also brought out well by both media outlets.
Conclusion
From this project, it is completely satisfactory by how the media outlets carry and give out their information. The only problem is getting some personal information that the president had raised that might be of national concern but of which the secretary does not have an immediate answer. In such a case, most of the Journalists are left with no answers or the real information they wanted to get.
References
Media matters for America. 2007. Web.
The white house website. 2007. Web.